Wikipedia:Editor review/Ged UK

Ged UK[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Archival note: Archived with consent of user (open past 30 day time limit)--Tru co 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ged UK (talk · contribs) I've been here a little while now (OK, quite a while) and racked up a few (OK quite a few) edits, I thought it's probably a good idea to get some peer feedback. I have been contemplating adminship off-and-on for the last few months, but thought it probably better to get a review done first. --Ged UK (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Your contributions look quite solid, I did not see any major warning signs when randomly checking a couple of contributions. If you contemplate adminship, I'd suggest you start contributing in Wikipedia: namespace more, contributing to the discussion at various talkpages and noticeboards, especially where you think you'd like to be active as an admin. Also, you might want to tone your automatic edits down because 40% of your edits are by script-assisted, something some people don't like in admin candidates. Other than that, I think you are on the right track. I was involved in the disputes you mention below as the admin that handled the page protection requests and I think you did a good job, seeing that I just unprotected Dirk Kuyt because of the found consensus. So keep it up! :-) So Why 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note - you edit too hastily sometimes, such as here. If you would have taken the time to check the full image here, you would see it is a shot. Apart from that, great work. Jack?! 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair point. I do generally try to take my time over editing as snap decisions are often wrong, but certainly in this case it seems I didn't; a touch of investigation (seeing the uncropped version) would have shown i was wrong. Mea culpa! Thanks for the comment :) --Ged UK 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions look great and are spread out in various areas of Wikipedia! Keep it up! You should contribute more to the mainspace, and to more collaborative areas. -down load | sign! 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I do watch WP:ANI and WP:AN though i often find it difficult to contribute as I'm not an admin and can't carry out actions that become evidently needed there. I do try to get involved in discussions where i can though. Thanks for the comment! --Ged UK 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am please to see that you have never been blocked and have worked on featured articles. Kudos! As for suggestions, I would caution against Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamael. Why is it not notable? Why delete rather than merge, which is what happened? Similar feelings with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis City. Why not redirect? Where did you search for sources WP:BEFORE? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. The first thing I would say is that 9 months after nominating Kamael, I feel that I've developed as an editor, and I think I would have suggested a merge rather than a delete were it to come up now. However, that said I think I would still nominate Crisis City for deletion, which was the prevailing opinion at the AfD. I can't remember the content fully, and i can't remember what research I did before nominating it, though I'm pretty sure it would have been at least a google search to see what i could find. --Ged UK 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and I am pleased to read that you would reconsider at least regarding the first one as it shows growth as an editor. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Camaron[edit]

You have requested a review so here it is. First, the basics. You are clearly making some good contributions, plenty of activity and your edit summary usage is good. You were granted rollback by me which you seem to be using well, along with other automated tools such as Twinkle. However, you are still making lots of manual edits which is helpful given your aspirations for adminship (some users at RfA don't like automated tool only editors). I have not seen any issues with your communications, you usually follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as far as I have seen.

You certainly are an experienced editor, according to WikiChecker you have over 11,000 contributions and have been registered since 19:22:34 29/12/2005 with your first edit on 19 November 2007, and no blocks. About two thirds of your edits are in the main space, which is quite impressive. A lot of these edits appear to be vandalism fighting and WikiGnoming. However, you do have a strong association with some articles such as James Cagney and Roger Federer and have made significant content based contributions which is good. It would be great if you could get some of these articles to Wikipedia:Good articles or even Wikipedia:Featured articles, and record this in your user space.

I notice you are participating at RfA which is good idea if you aim to go through it later. Your comments have been generally constructive and helpful there, though make sure you only comment in one of the "voting" sections [1]. Your contributions at XfD also seem good. You are willing to debate by responding to comments aimed towards you [2]. You quote policy/guidelines in your rationales which is good to see [3], though you may wish to be more specific to the context of the nominated page on how the page fails a guideline/policy e.g. quote the relevant section. You also take part with things at WP:ANI, which is good experience for adminship and I see no problems.

Overall, I am happy you pass my RfA criteria. You are a good trusted editor with a wide range of contributions, and I am happy you would make a good administrator. In fact I would be willing to nominate you if you like? Before you run however make sure you sort out answers to the three standard questions, especially what you want the tools for. I assume given your contributions this will be things like keeping an eye on WP:ANI, answering requests at WP:RFPP, and closing WP:AFDs. Good luck with whatever you choose to do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those are very helpful comments. The Camw voting cock-up was, as I explained to him, due to my floating on the boundary of support from neutral, so that was an unfortunate oversight from that! --Ged UK 17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
My work on James Cagney to pull it up from a C class to something currently around GA and hopefully soon FA, which is certainly my goal.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
There have been two that spring to mind. One is on Ryan Babel around a dispute on the best source to use for the player's height, and one is a very recent one on Dirk Kuyt and how to spell his surname. In both situations I tried (and succeeded) in gaining a consensus, mainly by notifying project of the discussion and asking for comment (eg WP:FOOTY). I always tried to avoid leading where i thought the debate should go, though clearly making my view clear.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.